• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

*** AMD "Zen" thread (inc AM4/APU discussion) ***

Panos said:
Yesterday the guy run a similar benchmark at 1080p with the GTX1080
You will see the 1700 @ 3.9 matching the 7700K @ 5ghz on all benchmarks across the board (some loses 2-3 fps, other wins 2-3fps). And if you see the Ryzen CPU you can run 2 games on it because half of it is idling.

Click to expand...

Its a good point the ryzen is not even been fully utilised as the 7700 is all most at peak ...maybe the driver from M$ re the scheduler may resolve this will see
 
Panos said:
It was posted few pages ago, and created a heated discussion. Especially why the Tomb raider is running DX12 on 7700K and DX11 on Ryzen.
Imho we should be looking for 2560x1440 not 720p. Who's gaming with a GTX1080 at 720p? All of us using it at 2560x1440 or 4K where the Ryzen CPU is far stronger than the 7700K or my 6700K.
Click to expand...

This thread seems to move very quickly, its a bit hard to keep up at times. :p

The DX12 item is just a human error, I don't believe any harm was intended. I 100% agree, as I commented in another thread, if you are spending all that money I want it to run at it's native res (Monitor) with all the bells and whistles. Unless its professional gaming I don't see the point of running at 720P even then id find it hard to believe they would run its at that resolution. However, I am not a professional gaming so I wouldn't know.

Once the little bugs are ironed out its going to be a very impressive piece of hardware, as its effectively killed X99.
 
gavinh87 said:
Not

Not all of us. Some of us are using at 1080 at 1080p because we're running 144hz monitors.
For that reason I don't think ryzen is for me :( which is a disappointment as I was really looking forward to this being able to compete with Intel's offerings at every level, not just when smt is used.
Click to expand...
If you're primarily gaming and at 1080p I'd definitely hold off on Ryzen until at least the 6c/12t chips come out. By then Windows will be patched to fix the SMT issues and motherboard BIOSs will have matured a lot to improve stability and performance. Better to make a decision at that point.
 
Got my Asus Prime B350M-A mATX installed with 1800X at stock speeds - overclocking is for another date, I need the PC to be operational before tomorrow and have 800GB of files to copy back onto the 2TB Samsung 960PRO M2 stick and applications to get working.

Some things I noticed are
a) its an F1 stepping (the one they were demo'ing a few weeks back) - not the rumoured F4 retail version (I notice scramz is the same).
b) the Asus BIOS (I updated it from the installed 405 version to 504) supports my 4 sticks of Corsair DDR4 2666 and reads the XMP profiles (as D.O.C.P.) without problems - so thats 4 x 8GB @ 2666MHz on a "low end" board.

juk22h.jpg
 
Last edited:
MDPlatts said:
Got my Asus Prime B350M-A mATX installed with 1800X at stock speeds - overclocking is for another date, I need the PC to be operational before tomorrow and have 800GB of files to copy back onto the 2TB Samsung 960PRO M2 stick and applications to get working.

Some things I noticed are
a) its an F1 stepping (the one they were demo'ing a few weeks back) - not the rumoured F4 retail version (I notice scramz is the same).
b) the Asus BIOS (I updated it from the installed 405 version to 504) supports my 4 sticks of Corsair DDR4 2666 and reads the XMP profiles (as D.O.C.P.) without problems - so thats 4 x 8GB @ 2666MHz on a "low end" board.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info and impressed the memory worked with no hick ups for 4 sticks

So what is the ram ? Modal opps see the sig impressed that it worked fine great news :)
 
StarShock said:
I think it's a more useful test to force a cpu bottleneck to actually show where the shortfall is. But people mustn't get carried away with the result. It's good to have more information to alow people to make informed choices. If you're building a machine just for gaming the 1800x isn't a great option. The 1700 and 1700x are better bang for buck for gaming and the 7600k and 7700k are the best pure gaming cpus. If you're doing more than gaming it's a different story. People seem way to interested in scoring points or winning arguments. Or proving that their choice is the best. What we have now is real choice, which means what's right for one person isn't necessarily right for someone else. Masking the differences to show one in a better light doesn't help anyone. Nor does writing one side off because it's a few % down in a synthetic test, which is what 720p gaming is.
Click to expand...

QFT
 
CPUz Benchmarking Single Thread

i7 6700K @ 4.0Ghz = 2144
i7 7700K @ 4.2Ghz = 2301

My 1700 @ 3.8Ghz = 2122
My 1700 @ 3.9Ghz = 2216

According the this, my Ryzen IPC is faster than Kaby using less power..... Am I missing something here?

My results seem more impressive than reviewers...

Just to note, I am on a B350 MSI Toma, with bios V1.0, no updated bios yet, RAM at 2400Mhz.

Just need correct drives to allow this performance to apply to gaming.

T1aPm9s.png
ATBzYYN.png
 
Interesting comments a few pages back discussing the perceived smoothness of the Ryzen in the side by side gaming comparison against the Intel. I personally can't see it that easily and note that they both stutter from time to time.
I was thinking back to the days when AMD brought out the Athlon. Do you remember? Intel went from 2.0ghz up to 3.4ghz with their pentiums, but they were starting to get toasty. AMD came in with the Athlon 64 cpus which used an integrated on cpu memory controller. People tended to find that a lesser clocked AMD socket 939 system was just a nicer overall gaming experience, i.e. smooth and consistent.

Could there be something similar going on here with other architecture differences or is it simply the increased cores/threads available?
 
Scramz said:
CPUz Benchmarking Single Thread

i7 6700K @ 4.0Ghz = 2144
i7 7700K @ 4.2Ghz = 2301

My 1700 @ 3.8Ghz = 2122
My 1700 @ 3.9Ghz = 2216

According the this, my Ryzen IPC is faster than Kaby using less power..... Am I missing something here?

My results seem more impressive than reviewers...

Just to note, I am on a B350 MSI Toma, with bios V1.0, no updated bios yet, RAM at 2400Mhz.

Just need correct drives to allow this performance to apply to gaming.

T1aPm9s.png
ATBzYYN.png
Click to expand...

As far as I am aware, CPU-Z isn't a particularly accurate benchmark. I believe the R7's benefit a lot from the bigger L2 cache as well. When you get a chance you should try some other benchmarking programs!
 
Davedree said:
That's great 100 points per 100mhz almost.
4.1ghz here 2411 st
https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_ryzen_7_1800x_processor_review,23.html

What voltage and temps at 3.8 and 3.9?
Click to expand...

I did a dirt 1.35v for both, haven't dropped the volts to find a sweet spot.

3.7Ghz is sub 1.16v, not dropped the volts yet on that either.


EDIT: Wow, I see people at 4Ghz with 1.5 volts, hopefully I can hit 4Ghz at sub 1.38, that be a touch.

EDIT 2: 1.35v 60c on load air cooled.
 
Scramz said:
I did a dirt 1.35v for both, haven't dropped the volts to find a sweet spot.

3.7Ghz is sub 1.16v, not dropped the volts yet on that either.


EDIT: Wow, I see people at 4Ghz with 1.5 volts, hopefully I can hit 4Ghz at sub 1.38, that be a touch.

EDIT 2: 1.35v 60c on load air cooled.
Click to expand...

Thanks man, brilliant real info.You might have a good one give it a go, It'd be great to see refined voltages and see how efficient these bad boys are.
I can't wait fof the r5 or evem the r3.
 
jaybee said:
Interesting comments a few pages back discussing the perceived smoothness of the Ryzen in the side by side gaming comparison against the Intel. I personally can't see it that easily and note that they both stutter from time to time.
I was thinking back to the days when AMD brought out the Athlon. Do you remember? Intel went from 2.0ghz up to 3.4ghz with their pentiums, but they were starting to get toasty. AMD came in with the Athlon 64 cpus which used an integrated on cpu memory controller. People tended to find that a lesser clocked AMD socket 939 system was just a nicer overall gaming experience, i.e. smooth and consistent.

Could there be something similar going on here with other architecture differences or is it simply the increased cores/threads available?
Click to expand...

i think thats possible why not
i saw way more stutter on the 4core cpu video, but the cpu wasnt even hitting 100% on any of its cores so why is it stuttering...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom